Luke Mitchell documentary

[IsurviveonCoffeeandWinein2021]

Did anyone watch tonight? I don't know much about the case originally as I was a teenager when it happened but I do remember how horrific it was and parents etc talking about it.

Was he on trial by media? The doc tonight certainly seems to be leaning that way. I think it's so coincidental it's been shown tonight when the whole Scottish institution is being questioned? I hope for Jodis family it is resolved one way or another

I can't stand Donald Findlay but yes, if anyone could get him off, it was him. That's interesting about the lie detector and psychopaths but what are the chances of his Mum passing it too? If he is innocent, this show hasn't helped. I really don't know what to think. I think most of us seem to agree that poor Jodi was very much disrespected in the programme

Still haven't seen part two but agree with above. His mum seemed like she could happily suspend the reality and bury it in her mind or maybe truly believes he is innocent and therefore was able to pass?

@LoisWilkersonslastnerve

I can't stand Donald Findlay but yes, if anyone could get him off, it was him. That's interesting about the lie detector and psychopaths but what are the chances of his Mum passing it too? If he is innocent, this show hasn't helped. I really don't know what to think. I think most of us seem to agree that poor Jodi was very much disrespected in the programme

Psychopathy is often thought to have a genetic link.

I can see me falling down an Internet hole reading up on it Greenland

The 2nd episode still isn't available on catch up!
Do you think they named a person they weren't allowed to intentionally? Pretty unprofessional of Ch 5 if it was s mistake

@LoisWilkersonslastnerve

I can see me falling down an Internet hole reading up on it Greenland

Yes me too

@Sootess yes they did. It's doing the rounds on Facebook now. From the documentary you would think he was innocent but you all make valid points about Donald Findlay etc

@WaxOnFeckOff

Still haven't seen part two but agree with above. His mum seemed like she could happily suspend the reality and bury it in her mind or maybe truly believes he is innocent and therefore was able to pass?

Yes I thought that about the Mum.

Her eyes were really dead and I felt she was in her own world. Cold eyes , in my opinion. They just didn’t show emotion.

A quick Google of the 'Investigators' & 2 of their 'experts' is interesting too 🤔

@Sootess

The 2nd episode still isn't available on catch up! Do you think they named a person they weren't allowed to intentionally? Pretty unprofessional of Ch 5 if it was s mistake

I believe Jodi's family had taken legal action but you saw the person's name when it shouldn't even have been mentioned due to the injunction.

It was all about Luke Mitchell, the looking at the murder of Jodi Jones isn't true as it's not balanced in the least.

I watched the first episode. It reminded me a bit of the case covered by podcast Serial (Adnan Syed) in that there was no scientific evidence and it was all circumstantial. Also the stereotyping perhaps affecting the case and public opinion (Adnan being a Muslim, and Luke Mitchell being into dark music etc). Although I thought it was a strange documentary in that it didn’t say what the evidence the police had was or try to dispute it. It must’ve been more than anything they gave away in the programme.

I just watched the first part, is the second part being returned does anyone know?

Watched this with interest. I indirectly knew the senior detective on the case.

My DH and I watch enough of these murder/forensic programmes and have come to the conclusion that it's virtually impossible to get away with murder these days. And in a murder as horrific as Jodis, how is there no forensic evidence from Mitchell? Any police blunders aside, there is no way a panicked 14yo and his presumably panicked mother could do a 100% job of cleaning and removing any trace???

But then again, how were a jury so convinced he was guilty? What information was not shared in the C5 that would explain that (aside from the fact it was a poorly made doc akin to a daily Mail/Sun article). Does anyone know if it was a unanimous vote by the jury or was it a majority conviction??

Also thought the 2 PI ex detectives were awful. We called them 'Hodder and Dodder' as them bumbles their way naively through the case. They couldn't solve a tunic cube let alone shine any light on this case

I dunno, I remember seeing his handwriting on a floral tribute to her and being shocked at how jaggy and staggered it looked.

I remember thinking “bet it was him”

Then later I wondered why the cameras had honed in on it in the first place

I have no idea if he was guilty, I had always assumed so.

Such a sad case.

*rubix cube

Not true about psychopaths being able to cheat lie detectors ... if that were the case why did Chris Watts fail miserably which led him to confess to brutally murdering his wife and two tiny daughters , he is a true psychopath

Ask any staff at Polmont when he was remanded/ convicted and they’ll agree he was guilt as sin.

@giggly

Ask any staff at Polmont when he was remanded/ convicted and they’ll agree he was guilt as sin.

I saw a post today on a private FB page I'm.on discussing the case & there was someone who was involved when he was on remand and was at the trial & agreed he's 100% guilty.

Guilty

Really wish the documentary had been better made as so many unanswered questions

@kirkandpetal

Watched this with interest. I indirectly knew the senior detective on the case.

My DH and I watch enough of these murder/forensic programmes and have come to the conclusion that it's virtually impossible to get away with murder these days. And in a murder as horrific as Jodis, how is there no forensic evidence from Mitchell? Any police blunders aside, there is no way a panicked 14yo and his presumably panicked mother could do a 100% job of cleaning and removing any trace???

But then again, how were a jury so convinced he was guilty? What information was not shared in the C5 that would explain that (aside from the fact it was a poorly made doc akin to a daily Mail/Sun article). Does anyone know if it was a unanimous vote by the jury or was it a majority conviction??

Also thought the 2 PI ex detectives were awful. We called them 'Hodder and Dodder' as them bumbles their way naively through the case. They couldn't solve a tunic cube let alone shine any light on this case

I was sure they said it was a majority decision in the programme.

The whole programme was dedicated to making Luke innocent. It wasn't about Jodi, her life that was lost, her family missing her and never seeing her grow up, have a family, have a career.

Yes it missed so much.

It gave zero indication of the actual comings and going’s of Luke and his mother and actual time lines.

It makes me think there must have been something really weird that the jury have been informed about in order to secure that guilty verdict.

@giggly

Ask any staff at Polmont when he was remanded/ convicted and they’ll agree he was guilt as sin.

I wonder what he said or did to make the Polmont staff say that ?

For those of you interested in the legal proceedings

If you search Luke Mitchell v her majesty's advocate the 2008 appeal is available as is the 2011 as first and second results. Both public documents on Scottish courts website. They begin by explaining the appeal grounds and basis of conviction, 2008 in particular.

@brokengate

I’ve just waded through that court document

The key thing that stood out to me was that they say they was more circumstantial evidence that they had but which was not published in that report , which helped return a guilty verdict.

There seems a huge gap between 5 - 10 in the timelines in the court documents

I presume the unpublished circumstantial evidence is to do with this missing time slot...